I am always amused when people talk about ‘US leadership’ in the world today, as I happen to live on earth and not in Hollywood. The last time the phrase was used I found myself looking at a photo of President Obama demonstrating what some people called ‘restrained masculinity’ (or some such nonsense) while watching a live video of Osama ben Laden being knocked out of action by US troops thousands of miles away. So much for postmodern definitions of masculinity, for if that is what we call restrained masculinity today then there must be a hell of a lot of macho guys watching Transformers 3 in the cinemas right now.
Anyway, all this talk of leadership has come to light again after the publication of the former US ambassador John Malott’s article entitled ‘Malaysia’s Political Awakening: A Call for US leadership’ (posted on the website of the East-West Centre EWC in Washington, re: http://www.eastwestcenter.org/ewc-in-washington/ewc-in-washington). The title of the article itself beggars belief: On the one hand there is a statement of fact (‘Malaysia’s political awakening’) and the other a moral/ethical prerogative (‘A call for US leadership’). But as Hume has noted, the leap from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ is a rather complex one, which brings into question other considerations including motive, intent and outcome/results.
Malott’s article takes a stab at being somewhat scientific by citing some index that states that Malaysians are ” the most submissive to authority of any people in the world”. Really? On what basis was this observation made? I am reminded of the Charles Humana Human rights index of the 1980s that claimed – apparently on the basis of reading the Constitution of the Philippines – that the Philippines then (in the 1980s) was one of the freest countries in the world. (Tell that to the journalists who fell foul of the Marcos regime.)
But what worries me the most about this article is that is is bound to be used to the max by the invested interests that oppose any reforms in/to Malaysia, and who are permanently on the look-out for ‘external/foreign threats and/or enemies’ to blame everything on. It is bad enough that Malaysia suffers under a mainstream vernacular press that has made all kinds of allegations about foreign funders and supporters being behind the local reform movement, (and which also suggest that Malaysians are such a passive lot that we need foreigners to reform us otherwise we will just be sitting on our arses.)
Malott’s article may do much more harm than good for it will be taken as a sign that some US policy-makers endorse and support the reform process in Malaysia, despite the fact that this process came from Malaysians themselves and from Civil Society movements in Malaysia that are home-grown and organic. Human rights NGOs in Malaysia do not need to heed the lessons of US policy makers when it comes to recognising human rights abuses in their own country, or in other countries for that matter- whether it is the detention of political opponents in Kamunting or the detention of foreigners in Guantanamo Bay.
From a slightly wider perspective I am equally concerned about what this says about how US policy makers see their role in the ASEAN region now and into the near future. After all since the 1990s almost all the American-backed dictatorships of ASEAN have collapsed. (Remember those darling dictators who were so strongly supported by the US government before, like Suharto and Marcos?) In a relatively short space of time we have seen the meteoric rise of China which is now asserting itself economically and diplomatically in the region. China’s massive investment into communicative transport infrastructure in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar/Burma and Thailand means that it will soon have access to goods and resources in mainland Southeast Asia as never before. And China’s soft diplomacy in the region has also paid dividends: Thousands of scholarships are now being given to future technocrats from Southeast Asia to study in China, which will later serve as China’s diplomatic and economic bridge to mainland Southeast Asia too.
The US, on the other hand, is nursing an ailing economy that was rendered all the more feeble thanks to its adventurism abroad. It has its troops bogged down in Afghanistan, Iraq, parts of Central and South Asia, and suffers from over-reach and has over-stretched its resources. Faced with the problem of trying to spread finite manpower over long distances to maintain its former hegemonic role, it cannot deal with China’s growing assertiveness in areas such as the South China Sea.
In the long run, China has two factors on its side, and both are real: Firstly its massive reserves of US dollars which it is investing into areas like Central and Southeast Asia, and secondly its record as a no-nonsense serious diplomatic partner that talks about real things like investment and profit and does not lecture on human rights. (Because China knows it has no human rights record to speak of in the first place; but that makes it rather attractive to other dictatorships and military regimes too.)
Southeast Asia is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea (or caught between Mordor and Isengard if you are a Tolkien fan like me). My suspicion, however, is that in the long run realpolitik will prevail and despite all this alarmist talk of China’s rising, the governments of Southeast Asia (perhaps not civil society) will turn to China for they know that that is the side of their bread that is buttered. Yes, yes we know you Yankees will talk about universal values and all that – but its the Chinese who carry the big fat cheque book ok?
Yes, the Civil Societies of Southeast Asia need all the support they can get to further the cause of public political awareness and the deepening of our democratic institutions; but the long term threat to our fundamental liberties and human security comes from an unrestrained free market that regards all human beings as units of labour to be bought and sold like cattle; and the environment as a source of resources to plunder. America can help this process along, and stop supporting the dictators they have been keeping on their payroll for ages like Marcos, Suharto and the band of bandits currently running parts of the Arab world and Africa. But America also needs to learn that its not the only sheriff in town, and that the rise of China and India means that there are other players in the game too.
Dr Farish Ahmad-Noor (Badrol Hisham Ahmad-Noor) is Senior Fellow for the Research Cluster on Contemporary Islam in Southeast Asia; S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU).